On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:37:47AM +0100, Yong Shen wrote: > Hi Sascha, > > > > > + local_irq_disable(); > > > + do_gettimeofday(&before); > > > + > > > + plat_lpc = __raw_readl(MXC_CORTEXA8_PLAT_LPC) & > > > + ~(MXC_CORTEXA8_PLAT_LPC_DSM); > > > > One thing that strikes me here is the fact that this code can probably > > run on i.MX53 aswell, right? It's only that these registers have > > different addresses on i.MX53. The MXC_ prefix is therefore not a good > > idea. Switching this to MX51_ and having an additional MX53_ register > > leads to code duplication. This shows that it's a bad idea to code > > fixed addresses in the code. We should go for base + offset instead > > so that this code will have a better start on i.MX53. This of course > > needs changes in the current crm_regs.h and probably in the i.MX51/53 > > clock code. > > > Yes, for mx53, it is similar. > But for the case you are talking about, is it easier that we keep MXC_ > prefix in this file and define MXC_ to MX51 or MX53 in crm_regs.h according > to which board is running?
I don't understand. How can we 'define' (which is compile time) to something depending on the board (which is runtime)? > In addition, registers for this code are not in one section, which means > many BASEx + offset there, if I understand right. Do you have a sample for > 'base + offset' case? since mx53 just came in, I am not sure about such > case. Forget it. I just realized that more or less by accident the virtual addresses for the i.MX51 and i.MX53 are the same. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
